Return-Path: Received: from [192.55.52.32] (HELO hermes-pilot.fm.intel.com) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.1) with ESMTP id 410746 for flyrotary@lancaironline.net; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:10:30 -0400 Received-SPF: none receiver=logan.com; client-ip=192.55.52.32; envelope-from=randy.smith@intel.com Received: from petasus.fm.intel.com (petasus.fm.intel.com [10.1.192.37]) by hermes-pilot.fm.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-outer.mc,v 1.15 2004/01/30 18:16:28 root Exp $) with ESMTP id i8EJAZ2t014357 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:10:35 GMT Received: from fmsmsxvs041.fm.intel.com (fmsmsxvs041.fm.intel.com [132.233.42.126]) by petasus.fm.intel.com (8.12.9-20030918-01/8.12.9/d: major-inner.mc,v 1.11 2004/07/29 22:51:53 root Exp $) with SMTP id i8EJ7Or2016624 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 19:07:25 GMT Received: from fmsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.156]) by fmsmsxvs041.fm.intel.com (SAVSMTP 3.1.2.35) with SMTP id M2004091412064204358 for ; Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:06:42 -0700 Received: from fmsmsx404.amr.corp.intel.com ([132.233.42.208]) by fmsmsx331.amr.corp.intel.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.0); Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:06:24 -0700 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5.7226.0 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C49A8D.ED6E25F6" Subject: RE: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2004 12:06:23 -0700 Message-ID: X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop Thread-Index: AcSai6DhuchARtnqSKuXIVGG1r8mfQAAMi7A From: "Smith, Randy" To: "Rotary motors in aircraft" X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Sep 2004 19:06:24.0853 (UTC) FILETIME=[EE136050:01C49A8D] X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.31 (www . roaringpenguin . com / mimedefang) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------_=_NextPart_001_01C49A8D.ED6E25F6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable =20 =20 ________________________________ From: Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Gietzen Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2004 2:46 PM To: Rotary motors in aircraft Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: NACA vs. P51 Scoop =20 I'd say forget the intermittent firing mode. For the same power it would likely result in just as much,+ or - , as reduced throttle; and shake the hell out of everything connected to the engine. As I understand it, the Cadillac mode is an attempt to improve mileage at low load; maybe 15 - 20% power or less. =20 Would it shake? (Why do I feel like a lamb, dumb before the shearer? :-) ) Ok the Cadillac mode attempts to improve mileage. Is 15-20% power sufficient (or perhaps slightly more with extra oil cooling capacity built in) to keep flying? I think I just found a use for the 12A engine I have been given. =20 If you are going to try to design against coolant loss; you may just as well try to design against loss of oil, about the same probability of occurrence. =20 You have a point there. Oil gone, I go until the engine seizes. Hopefully I can ditch near a passing ship or have enough time to radio a mayday or two (thousand). Same as with a certified engine as well. This needs more thought. =20 As far as scoops are concerned, a NACA scoop may work fine if everything else is right, but will never have the pressure recovery efficiency of a well designed ram scoop. =20 More evidence for the scoop side of the argument. =20 That'll be 2 cents, please :-) =20 I'll be at the Rough River fly-in. See me there. :-) =20 Al ------_=_NextPart_001_01C49A8D.ED6E25F6 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From: = Rotary motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of Al Gietzen
Sent: Tuesday, September = 14, 2004 2:46 PM
To: Rotary motors in aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: = NACA vs. P51 Scoop

I'd say forget the intermittent firing mode. = For the same power it would likely result in just as much,+ or - , as reduced = throttle; and shake the hell out of everything connected to the engine. As I understand it, the Cadillac mode is an attempt to improve mileage at low = load; maybe 15 - 20% power or less.

Would = it shake? (Why do I feel like a lamb, dumb before the shearer? :-) = ) Ok the Cadillac mode attempts to improve mileage. Is 15-20% power sufficient (or perhaps slightly more with extra oil cooling capacity = built in) to keep flying? I think I just found a use for the 12A engine I have = been given.

If you are going to try to design against coolant = loss; you may just as well try to design against loss of oil, about the same probability of occurrence.

You = have a point there. Oil gone, I go until the engine seizes. = Hopefully I can ditch near a passing ship or have enough time to radio a mayday or = two (thousand). Same as with a certified engine as well. This = needs more thought.

<= /font>

As far as = scoops are concerned, a NACA scoop may work fine if everything else is right, but = will never have the pressure recovery efficiency of a well designed ram = scoop.

More = evidence for the scoop side of the argument.

That'll be 2 = cents, please J

I’ll be at the Rough River fly-in. See me = there. J

<= /font>

Al

------_=_NextPart_001_01C49A8D.ED6E25F6--